Brooks and Capehart on Biden’s pardon and Trump’s nominees facing scrutiny

Geoff Bennett:

President Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter has drawn scrutiny from both sides of the aisle, as several of president-elect Trump's — rather, as several of president-elect Trump's picks continue to face heavy scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

On that and other issues shaping the transition, we turn now to the analysis tonight of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Good to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hey, Geoff.

Geoff Bennett:

So let's start our conversation where we started the week, President Biden's sweeping pardon of his son Hunter, which was notable because he came to office vowing to restore the independence of the Justice Department, and he repeatedly said he would not pardon or commute his son's sentence.

Jonathan, in your view, was it justified, and what's the lasting impact?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, one, yes, it was justified.

When the president said that he would not pardon his son, wouldn't grant clemency, the facts on the ground were completely different. It's the middle of a presidential campaign. He was the candidate for president, didn't want to be viewed as interfering. He's no longer the candidate. His vice president is the presidential nominee.

I am almost, 99 percent certain, that President Biden was hoping that Vice President Harris would win and that this would not be an issue. But when the person who won the race won the race by vowing a campaign — through a campaign of retribution, revenge, naming the Biden family in general and Hunter Biden, in particular, as someone or people, groups of people, he wanted to go after if he won election, of course, the president looks at the facts, says, that I cannot allow that to happen to my son.

And for the — and I understand the criticisms and the brickbats that the president is taking. But for some Democrats to be complaining about how you have ruined norms and you have given him an avenue, have they not been paying attention to who Donald Trump is either during the campaign or during his four years as president the first go-round?

And these are the same people who would be yelling at Biden had he not done something and then-President Trump took action against Hunter Biden, why didn't you save your son? Why didn't you help your son when you had the opportunity to do so when you were president? He's done it.

Geoff Bennett:

What about that, David? Did the intervening events, the reelection of Donald Trump, the fact that Hunter Biden would have been at the mercy of a Trump Justice Department, and that Donald Trump was very clear about seeking revenge against his perceived enemies, the Bidens chief among them, does any of that change the calculus in your opinion?

David Brooks:

Not to me.

Hunter Biden has already been convicted. He was about to get sentenced. This is not going to be a Trump thing. That was already happening. I think what happened for Joe Biden, it became less politically painful to do it. So he did it.

I have learned that Democrats have been running against corruption, against nepotism, against all the bad things Donald Trump has done. And to run against those things, you have to have a place to stand. I have to have a place to stand on legitimacy.

And I do care about norms. I think our society, our democracy, the Constitution is built on laws. But within the way the government functions, there are norms of behavior upon which our democracy depends. And one of those norms is that we have a pardon. The president gets presidential pardon power, but he cannot abuse it by just taking his family out of the picture.

In my view, he cannot abuse it by giving pre-pardons to people how haven't been convicted of anything. The way democracies fall is that the practices that make the democracy work get slowly abandoned step by step. And, obviously, Donald Trump is the guy abandoning those norms leap by leap. But it's important to me that we have one party that actually does defend those norms, defends legitimacy, and just doesn't go in for a freewheeling nepotism.

Geoff Bennett:

There's the defense of norms. And, Jonathan, we have heard Republicans already say that this pardon proves that it's Joe Biden who has politicized the Justice Department, not Donald Trump.

Whether that's accurate or not, I mean, it certainly could be politically effective, especially if Donald Trump does what he says he intends to do, and that's issue pardons for the folks who were convicted in connection to the attack on the Capitol on January 6.

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes, he said he was going to do it. He said he intended to do it. He's going to do it.

Whether President Biden pardoned his son or not, Trump is going to do it. No one's going to be surprised. And I take your point, David, about the erosion of norms. At a certain point, you have got to stop bringing a melon baller to a knife fight.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, how should Democrats think about that? Because you could argue that Donald Trump has really benefited from this asymmetry in our politics, where it feels like there's one party that's held to account to preserve the norms and to preserve the standard way of doing things in Washington.

David Brooks:

Yes, well, I think throughout these years, the Justice Department has done — justice system has done a reasonably good job of having a neutral law. They indicted and convicted Donald Trump. They did not go with Trump on whether the election was stolen.

They indicted and convicted lots and lots of January 6 people. So, to me, the thing we have to defend here is the justice. And defending the justice system as an objective, truth-seeking institution seems to require that as many people as possible treat it as the truth-seeking enterprise.

And if you give, say, pre-pardons, which is what they're talking about now, you have basically taken a whole sweep of people who haven't been accused of anything and saying, no, the law's not going to apply to you.

I think if Trump goes after Liz Cheney, say, Liz Cheney did nothing illegal. I think the justice system will — she will have her day in court if such a thing happens. And I think she will be vindicated because she hasn't done anything close to illegal.

Geoff Bennett:

The thinking, though, among some folks at the White House is that just the idea of a Trump administration launching an investigation, whether or not it leads to a prosecution, that that is reputationally damaging and it's also really costly.

And so you pre-pardon these folks to help get around it.

Jonathan Capehart:

And, look, I understand the motivation behind the administration and the president looking into this, thinking about it, even putting it out there that they're talking about it, which, to me, the story feels like a trial balloon. I won't be surprised if it doesn't happen.

Maybe they offer it and give the option to the folks, you don't have to take it, but it's there if you want it. And I think for some people, weighing the choice between having to sort of admit to something you didn't do or bankrupting your family, that's a hard place to be. And having that option might be something that people want.

But if the president doesn't do it, great. If the president does do it, not too thrilled about it, because it doesn't make too much sense to me. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand the motivation behind it.

Geoff Bennett:

It would be a novel use of presidential power. Let's put it that way.

Let's talk about Pete Hegseth, because Donald Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon is working to shore up faltering support among senators over allegations that he committed sexual assault, that he drank to excess, that he was ousted from two nonprofits for mismanagement. We should say these are all things that he denies.

The vice president-elect, J.D. Vance, is standing by Pete Hegseth. Here's what he said earlier today.

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), Vice President-Elect: Importantly, Pete Hegseth is going to get his appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, not a sham hearing before the American media. We believe that Pete Hegseth is the right guy to lead the Department of Defense. That's why President Trump nominated him. We're not abandoning this nomination.

Geoff Bennett:

So, David, what does this nomination and the defense of Pete Hegseth at this point tell you about how Donald Trump is thinking about his second term?

David Brooks:

Yes, well, first, it seemed like Hegseth, all the stories came out. It seemed like Trump was waffling, maybe this wasn't so great an idea. They sort of floated the idea that Governor Ron DeSantis might get the pick.

But then Hegseth did the smart thing. He attacked the media. He had these meetings on Capitol Hill. He's surrounded by reporters, and he lavished an attack on all media.

Geoff Bennett:

Even though his previous job was in the media. He was a FOX News personality on the weekends, a weekend show, but yes.

David Brooks:

That's questionable that he was in the media.

Geoff Bennett:

Yes.

David Brooks:

But — and so Donald Trump said, oh, he's bashing the media. Like it.

And so he has successfully rallied the administration. But as J.D. Vance just said, this is going to not be decided by those of us in the media. It's going to be decided by the confirmation hearing and by the FBI report. And if he does poorly in the confirmation hearing, then he becomes unpopular. Then he's still in a very vulnerable spot.

But it's so tragic because the Pentagon is in desperate need of reform. And you only reform an institution when you know something about it. And Pete Hegseth does not have that knowledge.

Geoff Bennett:

Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart:

And the key thing here about the FBI vetting, it's one thing, a sham trial by the media. You go before the Senate confirmation hearing. And bashing the media is great.

But once you start filling out that FBI vetting form, and once you start having interviews with the FBI, one thing that folks don't realize is, lying to the FBI is a felony. And so Hegseth is, I think, being pushed into this corner where we will see if he gets out. But he shouldn't be secretary of defense, not by a long shot.

Geoff Bennett:

Lastly, we saw Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy on the Hill this week. They are leading up this new effort in the second Trump administration to cut government spending and dramatically reshape the way the federal government works.

And I saw a quote from Louisiana Senator John Kennedy, who is known for his folksy sense of humor. And he said this about this effort to cut government spending. He said: "My experience has been trying to convince people to cut government spending is kind of like going to heaven. Everybody's ready to go to heaven. Nobody wants to make the trip."

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

That's a great line, right?

David Brooks:

Yes.

Geoff Bennett:

But, I mean, what — do you think they're going to have any success at this?

David Brooks:

They could have some small successes, but they're talking about cutting $2 trillion, and that's literally impossible unless you go after Social Security and Medicare.

And so they're not going to have that kind of effect. Then you get to the problem, when you actually want to trim government spending, sometimes, you have to spend more money in order to do that. So, all this — mostly the government is a check-writing machine either to defense contractors or people, senior citizens and everybody.

But if you're going to supervise the contracts, you have to have a lot more people working for the General Accounting Office and other places that will actually make sure the money is well spent. And so you have to hire more people. And so it doesn't work the way Ramaswamy is talking about the way it works. It doesn't work the way Elon Musk is talking about it.

Nonetheless, there's so much room for reform in the way the government is working that they could have some small and significant successes.

Geoff Bennett:

Ten seconds. What's your prediction?

Jonathan Capehart:

Ain't ever going to happen.

Look, good luck to them getting Congress to agree to cut something that happens to be in their district.

Geoff Bennett:

All right, Jonathan Capehart and David Brooks, thank you so much.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Geoff.